Flipping Nines Based on Volume of Play?

[Matthew Lloyd]

I'm curious what courses might play better on high-volume days by flipping the nines?


The course that comes to mind right away is Kingsley, which seems to have a major uptick in play since the change in ownership. The course is as great as ever, but on crowded days (especially in the morning) the pace can really drag on the front nine. I'm convinced this is simply due to the topography and the logistics of "getting out into the course." The difficulty of the first three holes also plays a role, but less so in my estimation.


It seems like most who visit this board are familiar with Kingsley, but for those who are not: the opening hole is a mammoth 600 yard par 5 from an elevated tee. If you can carry the center-line bunker complex the hole becomes very playable, but that's not a given for most players; and if you're walking the course (which everyone should!) then it's a S-L-O-W advance into the heart of the fairway due to the land movement. No crowds, no issues. But when the carts back up to the 9th green with the next foursomes, this can really create a bottleneck right out of the gates - on a hole that is also uphill and usually into the wind.


Then comes #2. Anyone who has played it knows that even a very good tee shot can lead to a double or worse on what is essentially an island par 3. If you're playing in a foursome, odds are at least two of you are going to miss the green. This can lead to a comedy of errors around the green with nobody to blame.


Play then starts to pick up on #3 and #4 -- but by then the groups are starting to stack up -- and the undulation of those fairways makes it fairly easy to get into trouble off the tee with a reasonably struck tee shot.


Just so my position is clear, I absolutely LOVE the first 3 holes at Kingsley and I would never personally choose to flip the nines.


But when compared to the back nine...


#10 is in many ways an ideal opening hole for a golf course. A much easier tee shot than #1 for the majority of golfers, and a high likelihood of keeping the ball in play from tee to green.


#11 will play much much faster than #2, especially for a foursome.


And #12 generally plays faster than #3 or #4, at least based on my many rounds there with a wide variety of skill level in playing companions.


Another argument in favor of flipping the nines on high volume days is that the transition from #18 green to #1 tee is seamless, at least if you're on foot.


Yes, ending on a par 3 is a bit unconventional, but #9 would be a blast as a finishing hole - and it might also feel less punitive as a finishing hole where it can't blow up your scorecard halfway through the round.


Again, I feel the course is routed perfectly as is -- but perhaps not intended for a high volume of play in a given day. When it comes to great golf courses, I've seldom encountered a course where it's seemingly so difficult logistically to get from the clubhouse to the first fairway when you're on a time crunch to not hold up a group behind you.


*** as for myself, I can easily clear the bunker complex on #1 but I admittedly might slow others down by insisting on walking - for that I apologize ***

[Tommy Williamsen]

Might work, but I would hate to have nine as my last hole of the day.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have not played Kingsley, but I wonder what Bill Yates would have to say about this if he were still with us. Maybe Forrest can share something on this?

[jeffwarne]

My guess is if you flipped the nines, all would go smooth until #10, then the same backups would occur for the same reasons.
The halfway house would the first thing to be blamed, then the "pro shop" for "slipping a group in off 10"

[Jason Topp]

There was a course in Northern Minnesota that purportedly cut a half hour off average round times by flipping nines.  The course originally started with a par 5 and then a par 3 which (if I remember correctly) Bill Yates says is the worst configuration.

[archie_struthers]

 


One of my Flynn favorites where I first caddied is Woodcrest (1929)  and flipping the nines there would be a fabulous idea. It's more a difficulty thing for me then a pace of play issue.


They switched the nines about twenty years ago when they built a fancy outside deck off the clubhouse. It allows for viewing of what was the front nine when I was a kid. The problem is that the new starting hole is one of the toughest tee shots on the golf course. It's really way too tight as a starting shot, with OB right and junk and hazard to the left.


This isn't the first time I've mentioned this but kind of like the left fairway bunker on 14 at Philly CC it just doesn't make sense to me!

[Matt_Cohn]

They flipped the nines at Poppy Hills a few years ago because the first few holes, and especially #1, made for a difficult and slow start. Apparently play was significantly quicker starting on what had been #10. However, they reverted a couple years later. Flipping the nines meant the first tee was across the street—out of view of the pro shop, away from the driving range and putting green. It meant the 9th green, not 18th green, was directly below the patio. It even made for a less direct pass by the snack shop. It might have been quicker, but it wasn't as good.

[jeffwarne]

They flipped the nines at Poppy Hills a few years ago because the first few holes, and especially #1, made for a difficult and slow start. Apparently play was significantly quicker starting on what had been #10. However, they reverted a couple years later. Flipping the nines meant the first tee was across the street—out of view of the pro shop, away from the driving range and putting green. It meant the 9th green, not 18th green, was directly below the patio. It even made for a less direct pass by the snack shop. It might have been quicker, but it wasn't as good.

I still don't see how flipping the nines makes the course play "faster".
Still gotta play the same holes.
Sure a reachable par 5 for #1 and a par 3 for #2 make early waiting inevitable, but it just sets up a clear run later in a few holes and the time is generally made up.(the same guy who is calling you about waiting on #2 is eventually having to run to catch up three holes later)
I'd rather wait on 2 tee than on #11, but in either case it's just a congestion issue of too many shots being played in too small an area(common with an early par 3) and can't see why flipping the 9's makes it "faster", even if one waits less earlier in the round.
As they discovered at Poppy, having the first tee out of sight probably created more flow(and other) problems than the original first few "slow" holes.

[Matt_Cohn]

They flipped the nines at Poppy Hills a few years ago because the first few holes, and especially #1, made for a difficult and slow start. Apparently play was significantly quicker starting on what had been #10. However, they reverted a couple years later. Flipping the nines meant the first tee was across the street—out of view of the pro shop, away from the driving range and putting green. It meant the 9th green, not 18th green, was directly below the patio. It even made for a less direct pass by the snack shop. It might have been quicker, but it wasn't as good.

I still don't see how flipping the nines makes the course play "faster".
Still gotta play the same holes.

I also had the same reaction and have no idea!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I still don't see how flipping the nines makes the course play "faster".
Still gotta play the same holes.

Because the groups will be at different intervals with different spacing than if they're just being sent off the first tee. As much as some courses have tee time intervals, they're not always honored, even when there's a starter.

If the first hole is a reachable par five, then groups are waiting on the tee for the group two in front to get off the green before they can tee off. If that hole is the tenth, they're putting out on nine while the group is waiting ahead, so they may not have to wait very long once they get to the tee.

It's been a few years since I read the Yates book, but he slowed people down on #6 at Pebble Beach so that the slow play and gathering of people on #7 wasn't so bad. The holes you play before can affect the flow which is the feel of the pacing, even if the actual pacing isn't much different.

Someone who knows more could tell me I'm wrong here, and I may be, but I think that's what Mr. Yates would say. Perhaps.

[jeffwarne]

I still don't see how flipping the nines makes the course play "faster".
Still gotta play the same holes.

Because the groups will be at different intervals with different spacing than if they're just being sent off the first tee. As much as some courses have tee time intervals, they're not always honored, even when there's a starter.

If the first hole is a reachable par five, then groups are waiting on the tee for the group two in front to get off the green before they can tee off. If that hole is the tenth, they're putting out on nine while the group is waiting ahead, so they may not have to wait very long once they get to the tee.

It's been a few years since I read the Yates book, but he slowed people down on #6 at Pebble Beach so that the slow play and gathering of people on #7 wasn't so bad. The holes you play before can affect the flow which is the feel of the pacing, even if the actual pacing isn't much different.

I understand the pacing issues and am familiar with Yate's work.


Groups not being spaced properly off #1 is an issue solved by managing the tee precisely and providing appropriate time intervals.
If a group walks up to the first tee immediately after the previous group vacated it,they are not "waiting" until their tee time has passed.(that would be the same if it were #10 and all 4 guys picked up on #9 and went straight to the tee)
Actually this is common on a 9th hole where multiple groups in a row stop for a reasonable, predictable period at the halfway house,then a group doesn't stop and insists they cut in and/or demands to play through.


Nothing throws me into a tizzy more on weekend mornings than a my starter telling me tee times are ahead of pace, or looking out my window and seeing a group on 1 green  another in the fairway and one on the tee.
Inevitably they will stack up at the first pinch point on the front.Doesnt happen often in peak season as I stress honoring tee times exactly  in training, but ironically happens the most on shoulder season days when we might have 5-6 groups all day no starter, and 3-4 groups tee off right on top of each other


I laugh when I watch a ranger at a public course approach every single group on the next hole after a difficult  par 3 (where they just waited to tee off) to pick up the pace and catch the group in front (It takes more time for four players to take 4 shots each on the par 3 than it does for 4 players on the par four ahead to play 2 shots each and be seemingly 420 yards ahead-especially if in carts)
Classic hurry up and wait.

[Sean_A]

Halfway house culture is annoying. Either make a rule that groups are allowed x amount extra time to tee off or stopping groups forfeit their spot if they lose their gap. The gap is, the group behind hitting their approaches. You see that and remain seated, then you should offer to let the group thru if the rear group isn’t stopping…. and even if you are on the tee. To me it’s common courtesy. A bit like being punctual for meetings.


Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Groups not being spaced properly off #1 is an issue solved by managing the tee precisely and providing appropriate time intervals.

I know, but in the case of some holes, even a 10- or 12-minute interval may not be sufficient on the first hole, but could be sufficient if it's when players get to the tenth.

Maybe.

I'm just saying I can see situations where due to the pacing and flow, a hole that plays more slowly or has more "pauses" or interrupts the flow as the first hole might play differently as the tenth hole. Ditto for 2 versus 11, and a bit less so or less relevant as you go on from there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik,


Forrest knows more than me, but designing for pace of play would change some long held tenants of design.  I know Forrest disagrees in part with a few of the ideas I took from Yates, but they make sense to me:


Each hole should be of similar difficulty, which may go against rhythm, but they can be difficult in different ways, i.e., some with hard tee shots, some with hard approach shots, and some where the putting is difficult.  If you graded the hole on that basis, on a 1-3 scale, most holes should be a 6 in total, whether the challenge is 2-2-2, or 3-1-2, etc.


The fastest play course would be 18 par 4 holes of similar difficulty.


What if the first hole was the toughest and each hole got a bit easier?  That would reduce backups, I think, but not traditional, LOL.


Par 3 holes back up play.  Ross said they could be harder because the ball is on a tee, and you can control the distance.  It makes sense for pace of play that par 3 holes are deliberately made easier, or at least avoid things that slow play like bunkers short right.  Maybe par 3 holes should grade out at 1-1-1.......


It helps if the hole before the par 3 is harder to slow down the approach to the hole.


It helps if the hole after the par 3 is easier, or at the least, has a wide open tee shot to get those golfers out of the way when players come off the par 3 and hopefully find the next tee already vacated.


Our fascination with reachable par 5 holes and driveable par 4 holes should probably be a thing of the past, from the PoP perspective.


There is a lot more....i.e., ponds really don't slow play as they are usually a quick drop, but sand bunkers do.  And there is still more, but I need more coffee today to remember, lol.

[Jeff_Brauer]

double post..that slows down the pace of reading on this site, and I apologize.....

[Bill Seitz]

And #12 generally plays faster than #3 or #4, at least based on my many rounds there with a wide variety of skill level in playing companions.


Another argument in favor of flipping the nines on high volume days is that the transition from #18 green to #1 tee is seamless, at least if you're on foot.


Yes, ending on a par 3 is a bit unconventional, but #9 would be a blast as a finishing hole - and it might also feel less punitive as a finishing hole where it can't blow up your scorecard halfway through the round.

I'll just jump in here because these can all be easily quoted together.  I'd say 12 probably plays slower than 3 and 4 tee to green, but might go faster once on the green.  But it's a lot easier to lose a ball after spending the full allotment of time looking for it on 12 than on either 3 or 4.  I'd call it a wash at best. 


I agree that the transition from 18 to 1 is seamless if walking, but then you're not getting a brat/beer/gatorade/etc for the whole round, which may not bother everyone, but I tend to like a quick stop walking from 9 to 10.


As for 9, I kinda like knowing if I tank it there, I have some birdies left out in front of me to make up for it.  I've always been the type of player that has needed a fast start, then hoped to hang on to good score.  Kingsley has taught me that it's OK if you're three over through #3.  There are still a lot of birdies out there. 


I think I only experienced two of what I would call "high volume" days this year, and one was a Fried Egg event (the other was the day before when people played practice rounds).  Otherwise, despite double the membership from when I joined, it hasn't felt all that different.  I can't say I'd love it, but I've started rounds on #10 enough times to say I wouldn't hate it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jeff, thanks for your post. To get at just one piece of it:

It helps if the hole before the par 3 is harder to slow down the approach to the hole.

Yes, different aspects of a course's design play faster or slower, so if the ninth hole is one that slows play a bit, so the pace is perceived to be better on the tenth… then that hole playing as the first hole may be perceived to be slower, and thus, worse.

When a hole is the first, there's nothing but the starter and/or tee times to slow people progressing to the tee and wanting to play. When it's the tenth, you have nine holes (and in particular the 9th and a bit less so the 8th) to affect how it "flows" into that hole.

That's been my only point (I think) here.

[Tom_Doak]

Mostly I don't think these pace of play things make as much difference as everyone claims.


But now I am curious whether there is any difference between the Black and Red courses at The Loop.  It's the same ground in different directions, but the Black course starts out with a hard par-4, and a par-3, while the Red starts with a normal 4, and a shortish par-5.  I will ask them if there is any noticeable difference in pace of play.